View Single Post
Old
01-04-2013, 10:05 AM
  #126
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frenzy1 View Post
I don't think I could disagree with you more. The NHL has increased the legnth of contracts (5 years to 6), given players almost 50% of the make whole money (they initially weren't going do to any).

To say they have not made an concessions is just flat out wrong.
The concessions that they are making still amount to a MAJOR give back by the NHLPA.

So, you offer scorched earth, and your defination of negotiating is to lower the flames by which the earth was initially scorched?

The offer the ownes made was akin to the players offering to eliminate the cap. It was a non-starter. So the players saying "OK, you can have the cap" that's negotiating?

Sorry, but that's not negotiating.

I get that the previous deal ended, but there IS a starting point to these current negotiations and that starting point is based on the last CBA.

The Owners want to improve their position from the previous deal but have not offered the players ONE inducement to get a deal done. Softening their stance on a scorched earth offer is not an inducement.

That's not negotiating.

Across the board, every aspect of every NHL offer sees the Owners improving their position and the players weakening in theirs.

Even the make whole is not going to make up the difference of 57 to 50 which is why the players are looking for a cap on escrow losses. So the Make Whole if accepted the way the owners proposed it still equates to a take back from the players.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote